Court Cases Violating the Constitution

favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee and Catholic Bishop Richard Stika are among those who opposed the bill to make the Holy Bible the state’s official book. ACLU director Hedy Weinberg called the legislation an effort to promote one religion over the others and described it as a violation of both the state and the national

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

This Court found that the wall between religion and government was substantially breached because “delegating a governmental power to religious institutions inescapably implicates the Establishment Clause.” Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 123 (1982).

There have been many complaints and theories of how the Supreme Court has a tendency to act as a "supra-legislature" (Woll 153). It is proposed that the Supreme Court takes the

Freedom of the press was the point of the First Amendment, letting everyone have a right to their opinion that was not available before the Revolutionary War. However, this is not the first time that the government tried to counter act this right. President John Adams, signed the first Sedition Act into law which were repealed by President Jefferson in 1801. The American Government promised freedom of the press when we became a country, and I see no reason whatsoever to take it away. Absolutely, was this an unquestionable contravention of the First Amendment. Contributing classified military secrets to the enemy is one thing I can understand them trying to stop, but not taking away a right that blood was shed to achieve. Hence forth,

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

The United States Constitution gives the American people their freedom so to speak. The Constitution outlines many things that other countries don’t offer their citizens such as freedom of speech, religion and the press. The First Amendment of the Constitutions guarantees that the United States people have rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion without the interference of the government. The Bible states in Deuteronomy 17: 18-19, “Now it shall come about when he sit on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall be with him, and he shall read it, all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes”. These laws have been called into question on several different occasions. However, like anything else, there are some stipulations with these laws. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) did shed some insight on the laws and how they can be interpreted. This paper will discuss the criminal statute issues, issues with the provisions of the Constitution, and the status of criminal prosecution for transmission of pornography over the internet. With the hopes of having a clearer understanding of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.

To begin with, Lemon v. Kurtzman was a Supreme court case that dealt with Rhode Island and Pennsylvania that supplemented salaries of teachers in religious based, private schools. In a 8 to 1 decision the court stated that Pennsylvania's non public elementary and secondary act was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed public schools mostly catholic to reimburse teachers who taught in private schools in the areas of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The courts decision established the Lemon test throughout the decision of this case, based on the requirements for legislation concerning religion. During the creation of the Lemon test three folds were created to explain and enact the

Trump, McCreary County V. American Civil Liberties Union, and Kleindienst V. Mandel. Washington V. Trump was the same case that is being held in the supreme court today with trump and Hawaii. The state of Washington held a lawsuit against Trump on the justifiability and constitutionality of the executive order set in place by the president. This case in still ongoing. McCreary County V. ACLU was a case held in supreme court on March 2, 2005. When three counties in Kentucky hung the ten commandments in their court houses and public schools American Civil Liberties Union sued them. The ACLU saw this is an infraction of the establishment clause, for the kentucky counties were establishing a religion. The court ruled that the exhibition of the ten commandments did in fact violate the Establishment Clause. In the case Kleindienst V. Mandel the court ruled 2-1 that the First Amendment granted the right of Mandel to enter the country. However when taken to supreme court the court ruled 6-3 and said that Kleindienst did not need to grant a waiver to Mandel. This concluded the case and resulted in the refusal of Mandel’s

this particular matter. The judges were divided, but ultimately, the court held that the Religious

I don’t believe that Judicial supremacy isn't compatible with the constitution. The constitution was written over a hundred years ago for a society that was completely different! Judicial review is arguably one of the only things keeping our society afloat. Now a days there issues present that the writers of the constitution couldn't have possibly dreamed of, yet they established the supreme court to deal with this. For certain issues that the constitution directly addresses, they should be inarguable, yet for others that may be touched upon but addressed it is up to the supreme court to address via Roe v. Wade. The gay marriage debate should be over at this point, the Supreme court as the deciphers of the law of the land ruled that it must

Graham (1980). involves the display of the Ten Commandments in the school classrooms of Kentucky. The court ruled agreed it was a violation of the First Amendment because it had no educational purpose. However, the Ten Commandments could be used in an English classroom to help students understand the language and how it has changed over time. In this case, the court ruled how displaying religious symbols in schools need to have secular purpose and be tie to the content and objectives set by district. This is the same reason why schools can put up Christmas trees in the school lobby, since they are a secular symbol of the holiday season, therefore it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In Regards to Stone v. Graham, the ruling derived from the Lemon Test, which comes from a different case. The court concluded that if Kentucky broke any of the three parts stated in the Lemon test, the state would be in violation of the establishment Clause. Since the Ten Commandments were not used for educational purpose, but instead were required by the state to permanently display them in the classrooms, it was unconstitutional. This case also stated how using the Bible may be constitutional in the study of history. In order to fully understand the ruling of this case, we need to know the Lemon v. Kurtzman case and how the courts have used the Lemon test to determine if schools are in violation of the First Clause of the First

In 1961, the monument of the Ten Commandments was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles that also gave similar monuments to other government entities in the nation. The monument is located in front of the Texas State Capitol were the grounds also contain seventeen monuments and twenty-one historical markers commemorating the “people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity” (Rehnquist). Van Orden frequently encountered the monument whenever he would pass by it on his way to the library located in the Supreme Court building. Fourty years after the monument was built and six years after Van Orden started frequently encountering it did he decide to sue the state officials. In Van Orden v. Perry, Thomas Van Orden claimed that the monument

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at